Harnessing gene fusion-derived neoantigens for 'cold' breast and prostate tumor immunotherapy.

Breast and prostate cancers are generally considered immunologically 'cold' tumors due to multiple mechanisms rendering them unresponsive to immune checkpoint blockade therapies. With little success in garnering positive outcomes in modern immunotherapeutic clinical trials, it is prudent to re-examine the role of immunogenic neoantigens in these cold tumors. Gene fusions are driver mutations in hormone-driven cancers that can result in alternative mutation-specific neoantigens to promote immunotherapy sensitivity. This review focuses on 1) gene fusion formation mechanisms in neoantigen generation; 2) gene fusion neoantigens in cancer immunotherapeutic strategies and associated clinical trials; and 3) challenges and opportunities in computational and liquid biopsy technologies. This review is anticipated to initiate further research into gene fusion neoantigens of cold tumors for further experimental validation.

A digital single-molecule nanopillar SERS platform for predicting and monitoring immune toxicities in immunotherapy.

The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has demonstrated significant improvements in survival for subsets of cancer patients. However, they carry significant and sometimes life-threatening toxicities. Prompt prediction and monitoring of immune toxicities have the potential to maximise the benefits of immune checkpoint therapy. Herein, we develop a digital nanopillar SERS platform that achieves real-time single cytokine counting and enables dynamic tracking of immune toxicities in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment - broader applications are anticipated in other disease indications. By analysing four prospective cytokine biomarkers that initiate inflammatory responses, the digital nanopillar SERS assay achieves both highly specific and highly sensitive cytokine detection down to attomolar level. Significantly, we report the capability of the assay to longitudinally monitor 10 melanoma patients during immune inhibitor blockade treatment. Here, we show that elevated cytokine concentrations predict for higher risk of developing severe immune toxicities in our pilot cohort of patients.

Apalutamide and Overall Survival in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 SPARTAN study evaluated apalutamide versus placebo in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≤10 mo. At primary analysis, apalutamide improved median metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 2 yr and overall survival (OS) data were immature. OBJECTIVE: We report the prespecified event-driven final analysis for OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1207 patients with nmCRPC (diagnosed by conventional imaging) were randomised 2:1 to apalutamide (240mg/d) or placebo, plus on-going androgen deprivation therapy. After MFS was met and the study was unblinded, 76 (19%) patients still receiving placebo crossed over to apalutamide. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy (TTChemo) were analysed by group-sequential testing with O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha spending function. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At median 52-mo follow-up, 428 deaths had occurred. The median treatment duration was 32.9 mo for apalutamide group and 11.5 mo for placebo group. Median OS was markedly longer with apalutamide versus placebo, reaching prespecified statistical significance (73.9 vs 59.9 mo, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64-0.96]; p=0.016). Apalutamide also lengthened TTChemo versus placebo (HR: 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.81]; p=0.0002). Discontinuation rates in apalutamide and placebo groups due to progressive disease were 43% and 74%, and due to adverse events 15% and 8.4%, respectively. Subsequent life-prolonging therapy was received by 371 (46%) patients in the apalutamide arm and by 338 (84%) patients in the placebo arm including 59 patients who received apalutamide after crossover. Safety was consistent with previous reports; when adverse events were adjusted for treatment exposure, rash had the greatest difference of incidence between the apalutamide and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Extension of OS with apalutamide compared with placebo conferred impactful benefit in patients with nmCRPC. There was a 22% reduction in the hazard of death in the apalutamide group despite 19% crossover (placebo to apalutamide) and higher rates of subsequent therapy in the placebo group. PATIENT SUMMARY: With data presented herein, all primary and secondary study end points of SPARTAN were met; findings demonstrate the value of apalutamide as a treatment option for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Understanding the Role of Comparative Clinical Studies in the Development of Oncology Biosimilars.

Biosimilars have the potential to broaden patient access to biologics and provide cost savings for health care systems. During the development of a biosimilar, data that directly compare the proposed biosimilar with the reference product are required. Such comparative data are generated in a stepwise hierarchical process that begins with extensive laboratory-based structural analyses and functional assays. This initial analytical phase serves as the foundation for the demonstration of biosimilarity and is followed by nonclinical in vivo testing (if required) and then clinical evaluation, including a comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study that is usually conducted in healthy volunteers. The development program typically culminates with a comparative clinical efficacy study. The aim of this study is to confirm clinical equivalence of the potential biosimilar and reference product on the basis of prespecified margins, using a study population and efficacy end point that are sufficiently sensitive for detecting potential product-related differences. Such studies also include detailed analyses of safety as well as evaluation of immunogenicity. As biosimilars become more widely available in oncology, especially with recent regulatory approvals of rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab biosimilars, it is critically important that clinicians understand how the comparative clinical study differs from a traditional phase III efficacy and safety study in the development of a novel biologic originator product. Here, we review the role of comparative clinical studies in biosimilar development, with a focus on trials conducted to support approved trastuzumab biosimilars. We discuss the study populations and end points used, extrapolation of indications, and the confirmatory nature of these studies within the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.

Phosphoprotein Biosensors for Monitoring Pathological Protein Structural Changes.

Current biotechnological developments are driving a significant shift towards integrating proteomic analysis with landmark genomic, methylomic, and transcriptomic data to elucidate functional effects. For the majority of proteins, structure and function are closely intertwined. Post-translational protein modifications (e.g., phosphorylation) leading to aberrantly active structures can originate a wide variety of pathological conditions, including cancer. Analysis of protein structure variants is thus integral to the identification of clinically actionable targets and the design of novel disease diagnosis and therapy approaches. However, it is still challenging to interrogate subtle structural changes of proteins in a rapid and cost-effective manner with current tools. This review primarily compiles the latest biosensing techniques for protein structural analysis.

Merging new-age biomarkers and nanodiagnostics for precision prostate cancer management.

The accurate identification and stratified treatment of clinically significant early-stage prostate cancer have been ongoing concerns since the outcomes of large international prostate cancer screening trials were reported. The controversy surrounding clinical and cost benefits of prostate cancer screening has highlighted the lack of strategies for discriminating high-risk disease (that requires early treatment) from low-risk disease (that could be managed using watchful waiting or active surveillance). Advances in molecular subtyping and multiomics nanotechnology-based prostate cancer risk delineation can enable refinement of prostate cancer molecular taxonomy into clinically meaningful and treatable subtypes. Furthermore, the presence of intertumoural and intratumoural heterogeneity in prostate cancer warrants the development of novel nanodiagnostic technologies to identify clinically significant prostate cancer in a rapid, cost-effective and accurate manner. Circulating and urinary next-generation prostate cancer biomarkers for disease molecular subtyping and the newest complementary nanodiagnostic platforms for enhanced biomarker detection are promising tools for precision prostate cancer management. However, challenges in merging both aspects and clinical translation still need to be overcome.

Effect of apalutamide on health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an analysis of the SPARTAN randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SPARTAN trial, addition of apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy, as compared with placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, significantly improved metastasis-free survival in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were at high risk for development of metastases. We aimed to investigate the effects of apalutamide versus placebo added to androgen deprivation therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: SPARTAN is a multicentre, international, randomised, phase 3 trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older, with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less, and a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 2 ng/mL or more in serum. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to 240 mg oral apalutamide per day plus androgen deprivation therapy, or matched oral placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, using an interactive voice randomisation system. Permuted block randomisation was used according to the three baseline stratification factors: prostate-specific antigen doubling time (>6 months vs ≤6 months), use of bone-sparing drugs (yes vs no), and presence of local-regional nodal disease (N0 vs N1). Each treatment cycle was 28 days. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival. The trial was unblinded in July, 2017. In this prespecified exploratory analysis we assessed HRQOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, which we collected at baseline, day 1 of cycle 1 (before dose), day 1 of treatment cycles 1-6, day 1 of every two cycles from cycles 7 to 13, and day 1 of every four cycles thereafter. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01946204. FINDINGS: Between Oct 14, 2013, and Dec 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 1207 patients to receive apalutamide (n=806) or placebo (n=401). The clinical cutoff date, as for the primary analysis, was May 19, 2017. Median follow-up for overall survival was 20·3 months (IQR 14·8-26·6). FACT-P total and subscale scores were associated with a preservation of HRQOL from baseline to cycle 29 in the apalutamide group; there were similar results for EQ-5D-3L. At baseline, the mean for FACT-P total score in both the apalutamide and placebo groups were consistent with the FACT-P general population norm for US adult men. Group mean patient-reported outcome scores over time show that HRQOL was maintained from baseline after initiation of apalutamide treatment and was similar over time among patients receiving apalutamide versus placebo. Least-squares mean change from baseline shows that HRQOL deterioration was more apparent in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In asymptomatic men with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, HRQOL was maintained after initiation of apalutamide treatment. Considered with findings from SPARTAN, patients who received apalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival and longer time to symptomatic progression than did those who received placebo, while preserving HRQOL. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Design and Clinical Verification of Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy Diagnostic Technology for Individual Cancer Risk Prediction.

The use of emerging nanotechnologies, such as plasmonic nanoparticles in diagnostic applications, potentially offers opportunities to revolutionize disease management and patient healthcare. Despite worldwide research efforts in this area, there is still a dearth of nanodiagnostics which have been successfully translated for real-world patient usage due to the predominant sole focus on assay analytical performance and lack of detailed investigations into clinical performance in human samples. In a bid to address this pressing need, we herein describe a comprehensive clinical verification of a prospective label-free surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) nanodiagnostic assay for prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification. This contribution depicts a roadmap of (1) designing a SERS assay for robust and accurate detection of clinically validated PCa RNA targets; (2) employing a relevant and proven PCa clinical biomarker model to test our nanodiagnostic assay; and (3) investigating the clinical performance on independent training ( n = 80) and validation ( n = 40) cohorts of PCa human patient samples. By relating the detection outcomes to gold-standard patient biopsy findings, we established a PCa risk scoring system which exhibited a clinical sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.90, respectively [area-under-curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.87) for differentiating high- and low-risk PCa] in the validation cohort. We envision that our SERS nanodiagnostic design and clinical verification approach may aid in the individualized prediction of PCa presence and risk stratification and may overall serve as an archetypical strategy to encourage comprehensive clinical evaluation of nanodiagnostic innovations.

Apalutamide Treatment and Metastasis-free Survival in Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide, a competitive inhibitor of the androgen receptor, is under development for the treatment of prostate cancer. We evaluated the efficacy of apalutamide in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were at high risk for the development of metastasis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive apalutamide (240 mg per day) or placebo. All the patients continued to receive androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, which was defined as the time from randomization to the first detection of distant metastasis on imaging or death. RESULTS: A total of 1207 men underwent randomization (806 to the apalutamide group and 401 to the placebo group). In the planned primary analysis, which was performed after 378 events had occurred, median metastasis-free survival was 40.5 months in the apalutamide group as compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.35; P<0.001). Time to symptomatic progression was significantly longer with apalutamide than with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.63; P<0.001). The rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen was 10.6% in the apalutamide group and 7.0% in the placebo group. The following adverse events occurred at a higher rate with apalutamide than with placebo: rash (23.8% vs. 5.5%), hypothyroidism (8.1% vs. 2.0%), and fracture (11.7% vs. 6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastasis-free survival and time to symptomatic progression were significantly longer with apalutamide than with placebo. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; SPARTAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01946204 .).

Quality of Life Outcomes for Cabozantinib Versus Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: METEOR Phase III Randomized Trial.

Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.

Cabazitaxel Versus Docetaxel As First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial-FIRSTANA.

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20) or 25 mg/m2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

Toward Precision Medicine: A Cancer Molecular Subtyping Nano-Strategy for RNA Biomarkers in Tumor and Urine.

Cancer is a heterogeneous disease which manifests as different molecular subtypes due to the complex nature of tumor initiation, progression, and metastasis. The concept of precision medicine aims to exploit this cancer heterogeneity by incorporating diagnostic technology to characterize each cancer patient's molecular subtype for tailored treatments. To characterize cancer molecular subtypes accurately, a suite of multiplexed bioassays have currently been developed to detect multiple oncogenic biomarkers. Despite the reliability of current multiplexed detection techniques, novel strategies are still needed to resolve limitations such as long assay time, complex protocols, and difficulty in interpreting broad overlapping spectral peaks of conventional fluorescence readouts. Herein a rapid (80 min) multiplexed platform strategy for subtyping prostate cancer tumor and urine samples based on their RNA biomarker profiles is presented. This is achieved by combining rapid multiplexed isothermal reverse transcription-recombinase polymerase amplification (RT-RPA) of target RNA biomarkers with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) nanotags for "one-pot" readout. This is the first translational application of a RT-RPA/SERS-based platform for multiplexed cancer biomarker detection to address a clinical need. With excellent sensitivity of 200 zmol (100 copies) and specificity, we believed that this platform methodology could be a useful tool for rapid multiplexed subtyping of cancers.

A simple, rapid, low-cost technique for naked-eye detection of urine-isolated TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion RNA.

The TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion is one of a series of highly promising prostate cancer (PCa) biomarker alternatives to the controversial serum PSA. Current methods for detecting TMPRSS2:ERG are limited in terms of long processing time, high cost and the need for specialized equipment. Thus, there is an unmet need for less complex, faster, and cheaper methods to enable gene fusion detection in the clinic. We describe herein a simple, rapid and inexpensive assay which combines robust isothermal amplification technique with a novel visualization method for evaluating urinary TMPRSS2:ERG status at less than USD 5 and with minimal equipment. The assay is sensitive, and rapidly detects as low as 10(5) copies of TMPRSS2:ERG transcripts while maintaining high levels of specificity.

Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865747. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1-21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0-21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7-not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7-18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·53-0·83]; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 [95% CI 0·41-0·62]; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% [13-22] with cabozantinib vs 3% [2-6] with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 [15%] in the cabozantinib group vs 12 [4%] in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 [13%] vs 7 [2%]), fatigue (36 [11%] vs 24 [7%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 [8%] vs 3 [1%]), anaemia (19 [6%] vs 53 [17%]), hyperglycaemia (3 [1%] vs 16 [5%]), and hypomagnesaemia (16 [5%] vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. FUNDING: Exelixis Inc.

Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib is an oral, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) as well as MET and AXL, each of which has been implicated in the pathobiology of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma or in the development of resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib, as compared with everolimus, in patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 658 patients to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or everolimus at a dose of 10 mg daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary efficacy end points were overall survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 7.4 months with cabozantinib and 3.8 months with everolimus. The rate of progression or death was 42% lower with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.75; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 21% with cabozantinib and 5% with everolimus (P<0.001). A planned interim analysis showed that overall survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P=0.005) but did not cross the significance boundary for the interim analysis. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions; doses were reduced in 60% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 25% of those who received everolimus. Discontinuation of study treatment owing to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients who received cabozantinib and in 10% of those who received everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was longer with cabozantinib than with everolimus among patients with renal-cell carcinoma that had progressed after VEGFR-targeted therapy. (Funded by Exelixis; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01865747.).

Abiraterone acetate for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy: final analysis of a multicentre, open-label, early-access protocol trial.

BACKGROUND: In the final analysis of the phase 3 COU-AA-301 study, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly prolonged overall survival compared with prednisone alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy. Here, we present the final analysis of an early-access protocol trial that was initiated after completion of COU-AA-301 to enable worldwide preapproval access to abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, early-access protocol trial in 23 countries. We enrolled patients who had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after taxane chemotherapy. Participants received oral doses of abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisone (5 mg twice a day) in 28-day cycles until disease progression, development of sustained side-effects, or abiraterone acetate becoming available in the respective country. The primary outcome was the number of adverse events arising during study treatment and within 30 days of discontinuation. Efficacy measures (time to prostate-specific antigen [PSA] progression and time to clinical progression) were gathered to guide treatment decisions. We included in our analysis all patients who received at least one dose of abiraterone acetate. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01217697. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, 2314 patients were enrolled into the early-access protocol trial. Median follow-up was 5·7 months (IQR 3·5-10·6). 952 (41%) patients had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event, and grade 3 or 4 serious adverse events were recorded in 585 (25%) people. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were hepatotoxicity (188 [8%]), hypertension (99 [4%]), cardiac disorders (52 [2%]), osteoporosis (31 [1%]), hypokalaemia (28 [1%]), and fluid retention or oedema (23 [1%]). 172 (7%) patients discontinued the study because of adverse events (64 [3%] were drug-related), as assessed by the investigator, and 171 (7%) people died. The funder assessed causes of death, which were due to disease progression (85 [4%]), an unrelated adverse experience (72 [3%]), and unknown reasons (14 [1%]). Of the 86 deaths not attributable to disease progression, 18 (<1%) were caused by a drug-related adverse event, as assessed by the investigator. Median time to PSA progression was 8·5 months (95% CI 8·3-9·7) and median time to clinical progression was 12·7 months (11·8-13·8). INTERPRETATION: No new safety signals or unexpected adverse events were found in this early-access protocol trial to assess abiraterone acetate for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progressed after chemotherapy. Future work is needed to ascertain the most effective regimen of abiraterone acetate to optimise patients' outcomes. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Multidisciplinary consensus: a practical guide for the integration of abiraterone into clinical practice.

Abiraterone improves survival, relieves pain, improves quality of life and extends time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A consensus-based guide for using abiraterone in patients with mCRPC has been developed by Australian clinicians with expertise in prostate cancer, based on their experience and supported by published data. Recommendations were developed for eight key topics: abiraterone administration; steroid administration and duration of use; concomitant medications and drug interactions; timing of testing and monitoring response; safety in different populations; potential toxicities; precautions and contraindications; and referral and multidisciplinary care. Abiraterone is taken orally in a fasting state. Symptoms associated with mineralocorticoid excess are managed by coadministration of low-dose prednisone or prednisolone. Potassium levels, blood pressure and liver function need to be tested frequently during the early treatment phase. Response to treatment is monitored based on symptoms, radiological imaging and PSA levels. Potential adverse consequences of long-term steroid therapy on bone and metabolic health need to be screened for and managed. Advanced prostate cancer is best managed by a multidisciplinary team and early referral should be considered. Questions about the potential use of abiraterone in early disease and in combination with other therapies are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: patient-reported outcome results of a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly improves radiographic progression-free survival in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with prednisone alone. We describe analyses of data for patient-reported pain and functional status in a preplanned interim analysis of a phase 3 trial. METHODS: Between April 28, 2009, and June 23, 2010, patients with progressive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were enrolled into a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were eligible if they were asymptomatic (score of 0 or 1 on item three of the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) or mildly symptomatic (score of 2 or 3) and had not previously received chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral abiraterone (1 g daily) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone in continuous 4-week cycles. Pain was assessed with the BPI-SF questionnaire, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire. We analysed data with prespecified criteria for clinically meaningful pain progression and deterioration in HRQoL. All patients who underwent randomisation were included in analyses. FINDINGS: 1088 patients underwent randomisation: 546 were assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone and 542 to placebo plus prednisone. At the time of the second prespecified interim analysis, median follow-up was 22·2 months (IQR 20·2-24·8). Median time to progression of mean pain intensity was longer in patients assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone (26·7 months [95% CI 19·3-not estimable]) than in those assigned to placebo plus prednisone (18·4 months [14·9-not estimable]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·0490), as was median time to progression of pain interference with daily activities (10·3 months [95% CI 9·3-13·0] vs 7·4 months [6·4-8·6]; HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·67-0·93; p=0·005). Median time to progression of worst pain was also longer with abiraterone plus prednisone (26·7 months [95% CI 19·4-not estimable]) than with placebo plus prednisone (19·4 months [16·6-not estimable]), but the difference was not significant (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·69-1·04; p=0·109). Median time to HRQoL deterioration was longer in patients assigned to abiraterone plus prednisone than in those assigned to placebo plus prednisone as assessed by the FACT-P total score (12·7 months [95% CI 11·1-14·0] vs 8·3 months [7·4-10·6]; HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·66-0·92; p=0·003) and by the score on its prostate-cancer-specific subscale (11·1 months [8·6-13·8] vs 5·8 months [5·5-8·3]; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Abiraterone plus prednisone delays patient-reported pain progression and HRQoL deterioration in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. These results provide further support for the efficacy of abiraterone in this population.

Effect of abiraterone acetate and prednisone compared with placebo and prednisone on pain control and skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: exploratory analysis of data from the COU-AA-301 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate potently disrupts intracrine androgen receptor signalling pathways implicated in the progression of the disease, including bone metastases. We assessed data for pain control and skeletal-related events prospectively collected as part of the randomised, phase 3 COU-AA-301 trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: The COU-AA-301 trial enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom one or two lines of chemotherapy (one docetaxel based) had been unsuccessful and who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 2 or less. Pain intensity and interference of pain with daily activities were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire at baseline, day 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of each treatment cycle thereafter until discontinuation. We assessed, with prospectively defined response criteria that incorporated analgesic use, clinically meaningful changes in pain intensity and interference with daily living. We measured time to first occurrence of skeletal-related events, which we defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation to bone, or bone surgery, and regularly assessed them throughout the study. Pain palliation was assessed in patients who had clinically significant baseline pain, whereas all other analyses were done in the overall intention-to-treat population. COU-AA-301 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00638690. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 20·2 months (IQR 18·4-22·1). In patients with clinically significant pain at baseline, abiraterone acetate and prednisone resulted in significantly more palliation (157 of 349 [45·0%] patients vs 47 of 163 [28·8%]; p=0·0005) and faster palliation (median time to palliation 5·6 months [95% CI 3·7-9·2] vs 13·7 months [5·4-not estimable]; p=0·0018) of pain intensity than did prednisone only. Palliation of pain interference (134 of 223 [60·1%] vs 38 of 100 [38·0%], p=0·0002; median time to palliation of pain interference 1·0 months [95% CI 0·9-1·9] vs 3·7 months [2·7-not estimable], p=0·0004) and median duration of palliation of pain intensity (4·2 months [95% CI 3·0-4·9] vs 2·1 months [1·4-3·7]; p=0·0056) were significantly better with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only. In the overall population, median time to occurrence of first skeletal-related event was significantly longer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only (25·0 months [95% CI 25·0-not estimable] vs 20·3 months [16·9-not estimable]; p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and prednisone offer significant benefits compared with prednisone alone in terms of pain relief, delayed pain progression, and prevention of skeletal-related events. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development and Janssen Global Services.

Phase II study on the addition of ASA404 (vadimezan; 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid) to docetaxel in CRMPC.

PURPOSE: This randomized phase II study evaluated ASA404 (vadimezan; 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid) in combination with docetaxel in castration-refractory metastatic prostate cancer (CRMPC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Seventy-four patients with histopathologically confirmed CRMPC previously untreated with chemotherapy were randomized to receive either